02 Apr '08 13:17>
I was analysing a recent (completed) game of mine to see where I had gone wrong. Given that I was mated in 12 moves you could reword that to say "horribly wrong". Anyhow, the Sicilian Alapin variation was played for the first couple of moves and I figured out pretty easily where I went wrong. Pretty obvious really when I look at it afterwards.
The interesting part was when I ran this game through ChessMaster and ChessBase Light. The game had got to Black's second move (1. e4 c5 2. c3) and I played Nf6 - as per the book line and (therefore not surprisingly) one of the 2 most popular responses (the other being d5). However, CM and Fritz suggested either Nc6 or d5 which surprised me.
Now, is this just a case of an engine thinking like an engine? I would have thought that a program like Chessmaster which has a database of openings would take well researched and established theoretical lines into account in its analysis?
The interesting part was when I ran this game through ChessMaster and ChessBase Light. The game had got to Black's second move (1. e4 c5 2. c3) and I played Nf6 - as per the book line and (therefore not surprisingly) one of the 2 most popular responses (the other being d5). However, CM and Fritz suggested either Nc6 or d5 which surprised me.
Now, is this just a case of an engine thinking like an engine? I would have thought that a program like Chessmaster which has a database of openings would take well researched and established theoretical lines into account in its analysis?